Sunday, July 08, 2007

144

There are now reportedly 144 responses in for the Guidelines consultation, which means the total is up by by 60 since the recent drive to get HEors on the job, ie: it is possible to do!There are some examples of responses linked to in the white boxes in the sidebar on the right.

32 comments:

Here are some questions that you might want to forward to those HE people who, "cant see anything wrong with the proposals" or who, "don't have time to read through 27 pages." or who "just don't know what to write":

What's wrong with the consultation paper?

Question:Do you want your local authority to be able to serve you with a notice requiring you to satisfy them within 15 days that you are providing what they consider to be adequate education?

Question:Do you want your local authority to be able to serve a school attendance order on you, forcing you to send your children to school should you not satisfy them that you are providing your child with what THEY think is adequate education?

Question:Do you want a Home Education Czar to be appointed in your Local Authority who will be de-facto supervising you and your children's HE activities?

Question:Do you want to be under the threat of investigation should a busybody neighbor telephone your local authority and complain that you are not educating your children properly?

Question:Do you want your local authority to be able to interview your children when you are not there, to assess if you are educating them 'correctly'?

Question:Do you want to be required to fill out a written report for your Local Authority detailing your HE programme?

Question:Do you want to be required to provide samples of your children's work for inspection by your Local Authority, so that they can judge whether or not you are educating your children to THEIR standards?

Question:Do you want to be compelled to invite a local authority advisor / consultant to your home to see whether or not you are a fit and proper person to be educating you child at home?

Question:Do you want your local authority to inspect you to see if you are providing 'consistent involvement', paper and pens, books and libraries, ICT, and, I quote, "the opportunity to interact with other children and adults"?

Question:Do you want your local authority writing reports on you and your family if they find that you are 'lacking' in what they believe is proper educational provision, and if having found that this is not the case, formally order you to send your children to school?

Question:Do you want to be forced to contact your local authority or fall under suspicion simply for being an HE family?

Question:Do you want to be forced to have your HE activities vetted by a third party so that you are not investigated by your local authority?

If the answer to any of these questions is 'NO' then you need to say so in the consultation response form.

Each of these questions is in fact what will happen if the consultation paper is not challenged by you.

Finally, the beginning of this consultation paper states, in bold type, that you are responsible for all financial aspects of your HE activities. They want to police your HE provision, force you to write reports and have your activities vetted AND they want you to pay for it too!

My advice to you, if you object to any of this, is to take an hour to fill out the consultation document, print it out and post it. Make sure that every HE family you know does so also. If you do not, you will only have yourself to blame if they bring in all of this absurd nonsense, and they will be justified in stating that, "only 150 people responded out of the tens of thousands of HE families, so we took this as tacit approval of the proposals".

And remember, Local Authorities are being given the chance to contribute to this consultation. Your voice is absolutely required in this. Do not put it off. This is about YOUR CHILDREN and YOUR FAMILY.

Many home educators, I am sad to say, are as thick as treacle. Some of them do not even have computers...and those are the organizers.

The fact of the matter is that there are only a few active parents in proportion to the majority of home educators, and it is these parents who are carrying the burden of protecting the rights of the slack jawed, weak minded naive simpletons who have no clue, no idea of what their rights are, and who are as fragile as wet tissue paper.

They are soon going to find out what it means to have their rights violated however, if they do not drink the double espresso and take the time to strongly object to these proposed guidelines, which will start off as guidelines and then end up as new law.

They are the first ones to cry in a meeting, the ones always complaining about group activities but who never contribute anything, they are always the ones who talk the most but who cannot even sit down for two hours to read a document and fill out a form to protect their children's futures.

They are the ones who let their children run around like wild dogs climbing on statues when you are out on a group field trip. They are the ones who bring their children to museums wearing Heelies.

Home education is growing at a fantastic rate, and no doubt in the future, when more 'normal' people are doing it like in the states, HE wont look like such a freak show and HE parents will be of a more serious and active type, but if we are ever to get there, home education must be unfettered, otherwise its growth will be cut down before it can reach its full momentum.

That is why we have to successfully fight off every attempt to regulate home education; so that it can grow organically to its full potential in terms of numbers of people doing it.

If parents who want to choose HE think that by doing so they will immediately fall under suspicion, many will be put off from even considering it. And then there will be the monitoring and report writing, form filling and intimidation.

If you like home education the way you have been doing it, no matter what sort of parent you are, then you had better take steps to make sure that everyone you know completes this consultation.

If you want home educators to all be strong minded and "of a serious and active type" then I don't really see why you responded to the consultation at all...?

That is just too absurd. I want home educators to be able to choose freely whatever they want, and in order for that to happen, they cannot be apathetic when it comes to the forming of these guidelines. That is obvious. You are just not THINKING.

The way you are talking here comes accross as much more regimented, authoritarian, close-minded, and prescriptive, than anything I have seen in the consultation.

And that is completely irrelevant. How I 'come across' does not translate into anyone having to obey me. That is the fundamental difference between someone in the public having an opinion and the state laying down guidelines. You cannot even make this simple distinction; this is exactly the sort of wooly thinking that I am talking about. Clueless, ignorant, shallow thinking of the kind that will see us all end up in shackles.

I am calling for something very simple. Stand up for yourself; fill out the consultation and do not expect things to carry on as they have done ad infinitum. You are the type that cannot even see the enemy when it is bearing down on you, like a deer in the headlights of a speeding truck.

Finally, any parent who does not take their responsibility for the safety and well-being of their children seriously, and who is not ready to be active in this regard does not have my approval or sympathy. There really is no option about this. And when you factor in that we are talking about filling out a form and posting it, I really cannot accept that an HE parent would not do it. To each his own. But for goodness sake do not talk gibberish about this!

You are talking about aiming for a day when all home educators are serious and active types. This suggests that uniformity and conformity are Utopian to you. Thus, an authority enforcing such homogenisation should suit your aims nicely, I would think.

If this is *not* what you are suggesting, then I suggest you work to improve your phraseology.

There are people who have no desire to involve themselves in politics; you would wish to deprive them of this choice? There are people who agree with the consultation as it stands; are they not entitled to do so silently? Or do you consider it their civic duty to speak out *in agreement* with the propositions?

You are working on the assumption that all home educators want exactly the same things that *you*, yourself, want, and that they are making you fight for it on their behalf. *That* is "wooly" thinking.

You are talking about aiming for a day when all home educators are serious and active types. This suggests that uniformity and conformity are Utopian to you. Thus, an authority enforcing such homogenisation should suit your aims nicely, I would think.

That's completely stupid. And you know it.

There are people who have no desire to involve themselves in politics; you would wish to deprive them of this choice?

Once again, you are being rather thick. They are completely at liberty to not involve themselves in politics. When they are forced to send their children to school, then they can take the direct consequences of their apathy.

There are people who agree with the consultation as it stands; are they not entitled to do so silently? Or do you consider it their civic duty to speak out *in agreement* with the propositions?

Once again, if they agree with it, then they can take the consequences of that. This is perfectly obvious, and adults should be able to understand these positions givens in any debate. I should not have to spell out these obvious facts every time I make an argument.

There are some HE families who actively seek out the LA and demand to be inspected for whatever reason. That is their right, and I support them and their right to do this.

What I am saying is that it is our right to not be inspected if we do not choose to be, and as I do my duty and stand up for them and their rights, it is their duty to stand up for me and mine. It is really extraordinarily simple. My call is for all people who want to freely choose the way that they want to home educate to fill out the consultation. It is a clear and simple matter, that has only to do with filling out the consultation form and nothing else. You really need to think more clearly. If we don't stand up for each other, and take each others rights into account, no one will have any rights at all.

You are working on the assumption that all home educators want exactly the same things that *you*, yourself, want, and that they are making you fight for it on their behalf. *That* is "wooly" thinking.

No. I am working on the assumption that we are all better off if we are allowed to live as we think is correct; the people who want to engage with authority are free to do so and the people who do not are free not to. I should not be compelled to submit to examination because someone else thinks its perfectly 'OK', and someone who wants to engage with the LA should not be stopped because I think that it is not a good idea. That is the difference between living in a free country and not living in a free country, and that is the difference between someone (like me) who actually respects other people and their beliefs and others who merely pay glib lip service to 'diversity', like you.

And whatever made you conclude that I make no distinction between your opinion and guidelines that *may* (at a far later date, and after further consultation) end up becoming law?

Because what you wrote was so monumentally dull-witted.

Everyone has the right to either engage in this process or not. What is unacceptable is that there are people who do not want to engage in it, for the smallest amount of effort and the price of a stamp, but who then complain bitterly that things are not being done to their tastes, and who will howl and scream that their rights are being violated when their children are hauled off to school like the Buskeros family when they did literally NOTHING to prevent it from happening.

I was *not* saying "this person says worse things than the consultation and we should object to him/her not it", yet, this is how you are portraying my words.

I was *not* suggesting that we should give equal weight to battling an individual's prejudices and official prejudices that could possibly become enshrined in law - yet you spent a good while arguing against this position, even though it is not one that I had taken.

What I was trying to show was the paradox of the idea that "People *should* object to being told what they should do".

You have made yourself far clearer now, and I thank you for this clarification. :)

But let me point out one thing: You are *not* an intellectual giant who is unhappily forced to battle midgets who clog the path to freedom, so let's can that pretence right now. Okay?

Likewise, I am far from being "dull-witted".

If we are fighting for the right of parents to educate their children free from state interference then I believe we should show some respect for the people we are fighting for, and not label them in the insulting and patronising manner that you have done.

There is more than a hint of the "only those bright enough and pro-active enough to campaign for it deserve to be given freedom" to what you are writing. I find this distasteful in the extreme.

While I agree that complacency can be ignorant, I do not believe it implies culpability. A person who leaves their doors unlocked does not deserve to have their home broken into, likewise those who do not involve themselves in the political process do not deserve to have their rights ridden rough-shod over by over zealous civil servants.

If you are not in agreement on this, then I think you are wasting your time being politically active at all, as you are allowing and, indeed, propogating, a "divide and rule" system, that will ultimately destroy us far more effectively than apathy.

And, as I footnote to the above, may I point out that people who have not responded to the consultation will have many varied and personal/individual reasons for this? And that we cannot, and, indeed, *do* not, know what these might be?

And that, while we can talk about apathy and ignorance, we cannot assume that these are the only possible reasons for "failing" to respond to the consultation?

I welcome the publicising of this consultation. I have said before that I wholeheartedly applaud Carlotta's efforts here!

But let's not take the drive to recruit more respondees into judgment and stereotyping of those who do not "answer the call." That really isn't helpful.

Not quite sure where you are Adele but if just not a permanent resident, I cannot see how you could not respond as a very interested party and stakeholder, or if in Wales, I still think it legitimate to respond, as the results of the consultation may very well impact upon what the Welsh assembly choose to do.

Thanks for the debate guys. I enjoyed this airing of a number of major knotty problems!

I live in Scotland, but I've responded on the grounds that we're planning to move back to England at some point, so it will apply to us then - I hope they'll accept me as an "interested party" on those grounds. :)

"Thanks for the debate guys. I enjoyed this airing of a number of major knotty problems!"

I'm glad it's not bothering you! I seem to have a tendency to monopolise your comments box sometimes! [Blushes]

"Hope you are both OK with it though!"

Thanks. :)

I hope the other party is "okay with it" too. I am, as long as *you* are, Carlotta - it's your blog, after all! :)

What I was trying to show was the paradox of the idea that "People *should* object to being told what they should do".

There is no paradox in that; if people do not band together so that they are not told what they should do, then everyone will end up being compelled to do things that they do not want to do. The state is a servant, wether you choose to engage with it or choose not to. That is what everyone should strive to presesrve, because it protects everyone equally.

But let me point out one thing: You are *not* an intellectual giant who is unhappily forced to battle midgets who clog the path to freedom, so let's can that pretence right now. Okay?

I am smarter than you. I am smarter than the people who will not respond to the consultation. These are the facts. It is absolutely absurd that there have been so few responses. It makes me angry, and should make any living person angry. It also makes me doubly angry because these weak minded people and their inaction will have a direct effect on the quality of my children's lives. I despise them, rightly, for being the way that they are.

Likewise, I am far from being "dull-witted".

I agree. You are in the top ten percent in that you are actually able to use a blog. You are one of the good people. By writing in your blog and commenting on other people's blogs you make a difference, whether you agree with me or not. That is a fact.

If we are fighting for the right of parents to educate their children free from state interference then I believe we should show some respect for the people we are fighting for, and not label them in the insulting and patronising manner that you have done.

I fear that we are not fighting for the rights of parents, but are instead, fighting for our own rights in the face of a tidal wave of apathy. I have not labeled these apathetic parents in a patronising way, I am merely telling it like it is. Their apathy is dangerous. Apathy in a democracy is its death knell. I am not the first person to say this, and what I am saying is not particularly insightful. Its just a fact.

There is more than a hint of the "only those bright enough and pro-active enough to campaign for it deserve to be given freedom" to what you are writing. I find this distasteful in the extreme.

It would be distasteful if it were true, but you have totally misread what I have explicitly said. Fun isn't it?

A person who leaves their doors unlocked does not deserve to have their home broken into, likewise those who do not involve themselves in the political process do not deserve to have their rights ridden rough-shod over by over zealous civil servants.

Mixed metaphors...but ill bite. If you want over zealous civil servants to break into your home and steal your children, then you sit at home and do nothing. Criminals, like over zealous civil servants, do not care about what you think, or your home, or anything else for that matter. They only want what they want, and in the case of over zealous civil servants, they want to exert their control freakery over you. Only a fool keeps his door unlocked when he knows a burglar is operating in his area, and in the case of this consultation, we have had advance warning of a burglar coming to rob our houses. Only a stupid battery chicken would just sit there and cluck, using sophistry and nonsense to justify their laziness and stupidity.

And, as I footnote to the above, may I point out that people who have not responded to the consultation will have many varied and personal/individual reasons for this?

They can always submit anonymously. There is no excuse.

But let's not take the drive to recruit more respondees into judgment and stereotyping of those who do not "answer the call." That really isn't helpful.

This is a thread in a blog. It is not being propagated. It is not worthy of a blog post. It is two people throwing around a ball. The push to get people off of their backsides carries on in other places, and it is going well. This thread started because an anonymous commenter said, "A few hundred is still a ridiculous amount for the dozens of thousands of home educating families that are said to exist." and I agreed with it TOTALY and took it further.

With all the tools we have today, the least of which being the telephone, we should expect a 90% response rate from the entire home schooling population of England. That is not asking for much, considering how easy it is to respond.

"There is no paradox in that; if people do not band together so that they are not told what they should do, then everyone will end up being compelled to do things that they do not want to do."

What if banding together is one of the things they don't want to do? Are they not then being compelled to do something that they do not wish to do, under threat that not doing it will lead to complusion?

You can't deny the paradox. You can claim it irrelevant, but you can't deny it's there.

"The state is a servant, wether you choose to engage with it or choose not to. That is what everyone should strive to presesrve, because it protects everyone equally."

[Applauds and cheers!]

I could not agree more! Very few people recognise that the state is a servant - that you're one of them means you may have some intellectual trousers behind that eloquent-yet-arrogant mouth of yours, after all! ;)

"I am smarter than you. I am smarter than the people who will not respond to the consultation. These are the facts."

These are your version of the facts. You cannot deduce that you are smarter than me merely from reading a few blog comments. For one thing you would have to factor in your own inevitable bias, and few people are emotionally smart enough to do this, whatever their IQs may be.

Perhaps you *are* smarter than me. Perhaps you *are* smarter than the people who will not respond to the consultation.

But under-estimating one's opponents can be dangerous - we're in agreement on that, are we not? ;)

"It would be distasteful if it were true, but you have totally misread what I have explicitly said. Fun isn't it?"

LOL! :D

I'm actually starting to enjoy myself now!

Either *I* have misread or *you* have misinterpreted; either is as likely.

"It is absolutely absurd that there have been so few responses."

I do agree, actually.

"It makes me angry, and should make any living person angry."

Stop the "should"s?

"It also makes me doubly angry because these weak minded people and their inaction will have a direct effect on the quality of my children's lives. I despise them, rightly, for being the way that they are."

That's harsh. I can see where you're coming from completely, but I still think it's harsh.

For one thing, not all non-respondees are weak-minded, so please don't generalise.

This is interesting and I might get back to this later when I've thought some more, if that's okay?

"I fear that we are not fighting for the rights of parents, but are instead, fighting for our own rights in the face of a tidal wave of apathy."

I think this is the key here. If you are fighting for *your own* rights, you're probably going to lose heart, get angry and disheartened, and generally drained by the effort - that is more than understandable; it's predictable.

"I have not labeled these apathetic parents in a patronising way, I am merely telling it like it is."

Slow down; let's get one thing sorted before we go any further: By "these apathetic parents" do you mean only those that actually *are* apathetic, or do you mean to impose the label on all non-respondees?

"Their apathy is dangerous. Apathy in a democracy is its death knell. I am not the first person to say this, and what I am saying is not particularly insightful. Its just a fact."

And it's one that no one is seeking to deny.

"Only a stupid battery chicken would just sit there and cluck, using sophistry and nonsense to justify their laziness and stupidity."

Who is doing that? Show me an example?

"They can always submit anonymously."

Which is relevant only to those who are wary of disclosing their identities, but, as I said before, we don't actually know why any given person has not responded, so the fact that anonymous responses may be possible (IF they are. Can you leave your details blank? Will they still count responses in such instances? If so, how would they verify that it wasn't simply multiple responses from one person?)may have no bearing on their decision.

"There is no excuse."

Is one needed?

"With all the tools we have today, the least of which being the telephone, we should expect a 90% response rate from the entire home schooling population of England. That is not asking for much, considering how easy it is to respond."

Now, I can agree with this. When you talk about the percentage of responses we should reasonably expect, I can agree completely. It's when you attempt to translate the percentages into individual human-beings and label them all in the same way, that I take issue with it.

If you say that we can reasonably expect a 90% response rate, I could (stupidly?) infer from this that you think it is reasonable to expect 10% *not* to respond. So you recognise that some people may have "valid" reasons not to? But that the sheer number of non-respondees means that the majority of them are likely to be merely apathetic and this is unacceptable? Then, we are in agreement, and this could have been avoided by more careful use of language.

For one thing, not all non-respondees are weak-minded, so please don't generalise.

I don't work for the BBC, so I am free to tell the truth and to do it in my own abrasive eyebrow raising style. Obviously I mean the people who do not respond for a bad reason, as opposed to people who do not respond for a good reason....if they can conjure one up from a black hat while they are trying to pull up a rabbit for dinner.

But under-estimating one's opponents can be dangerous - we're in agreement on that, are we not? ;)

You are not my opponent, you are my friend.

If you say that we can reasonably expect a 90% response rate, I could (stupidly?) infer from this that you think it is reasonable to expect 10% *not* to respond. So you recognise that some people may have "valid" reasons not to?

No, i understand that there will be some people who miss the deadline or for some other reason just didn't get around to it. That's OK. Refusing to help is NOT OK.

Then, we are in agreement, and this could have been avoided by more careful use of language.

I saved that for the consultation!!

It's lucky that *I* am not claiming to be of superior intelligence! ;D

Mistakes are beautiful...I make so many it beggars belief. Superior intelligence is actually worthless. Its like being too tall; good to get things off of high shelves, but thats about it. In every other way it is a PITA.

Superior in this context means above average. Like being above average in height, nothing fits you, not clothes, not cars not bikes...its just exclusion by virtue of being above average. You cannot drop superior. You must and should agree with me.

Quite a personal question, but when you "despise" the "weak-minded", do you think there might be a hint of envy there?

Do you mean, do i ever think to my self in the bath "wish I was thick"? No... you couldn't possibly mean that.

"Superior in this context means above average. Like being above average in height, nothing fits you, not clothes, not cars not bikes...its just exclusion by virtue of being above average. You cannot drop superior."

But this is viewing intelligence as vertical, when it isn't really, is it?

"You must and should agree with me."

LOL!

"Do you mean, do i ever think to my self in the bath "wish I was thick"?"

But this is viewing intelligence as vertical, when it isn't really, is it?

If i said it was horizontal, someone could accuse me of being sizeist. And we couldn't have that now could we? Greater intelligence, ability...greatness itself has always been described as upward in direction; high intelligence, highly creative, high aptitude, highly gifted, high as a kite, above average...you name it. McDonalds eaters are bigger in the horizontal. They are the LOWEST common denominator. They are the LOWER percentile. Low intelligence is BENEATH higher intelligence, it is not ADJACENT to it.

Download the consultation documents, open the response form in your word processor, type in your responses, save it and then print it out. Tick the boxes, fill in a name and an address (doesn't matter what it is) and then post it.